Profile of Katitof

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

General Information
Broadcast: https://www.twitch.tv/katitof


Thread: [May Patch] Remove the self spotting ability from the SU8513 May 2016, 16:37 PM Can we ban again this lolcake re-incarnation already? In: Lobby
Thread: Nerf Panzerfusiliers13 May 2016, 15:04 PM In light of volks getting a snare they are simply an upgrade over them. More durable, more firepower, more utility, give nothing up in return, higher cost. PFs role was always volk replacement. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Nerf Panzerfusiliers13 May 2016, 14:56 PM Jump back to quoted post13 May 2016, 14:53 PMRocket There suppose to be a dedicated AI unit only problem I have with them is that they have an AT snare. Seems like too many options for them. It like if pathfinders had a AT snare or something. EDIT Think this was because okw didn't have it on there basic infantry, now that they will I think it should be removed. PFs always were general infantry replacement to me, their toolkit supports exactly that, mobility, field presence, active ability with nades and AT nades. Thats general infantry, not AI specialist. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Change matchmaking System to vCoH Style please13 May 2016, 14:48 PM Can't you just accept the fact that you either play to win or play RT? In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Tiger without claws?13 May 2016, 13:30 PM Jump back to quoted post13 May 2016, 13:19 PMJohnnyB Didn't we talk about Ostheer's Tiger? And about Ostheer's liability? Since when OH has 5 and 6 men squads? The only allied army in the game having 4 men squads core infantry is Brits and by the time Tiger appears we are talking 5 men squads. I think it's something wrong with you COH2 copy, not mine. Irrelevant. OKW exists, soviets fight against them too. USF and UKF exists too, ost Tiger shoots at 4 and 5 man squads as well. You can't take the part of the game that suits your argument and completely ignore the part that goes against it, because its inconvenient for you. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Bofors13 May 2016, 13:26 PM Jump back to quoted post13 May 2016, 13:22 PMDiePest Just for my understanding guys, why do Brits have to rely on emplacements? As far as I understood it (which might be to a lesser extent because I'm not a very good or experienced player) Brits got very potent infantry, a good light vehicle, sniper, very good AT gun, a lot of very good tanks, good weapon upgrades, one of the best MGs, a mobile vehicle based flamer, etc. All they are missing is the mobile mortar. So why do they have to get Bofors? It sounds as if they stand no chance without it. Coming from the low end of the ladder with lots to learn especially when it comes to micro, I find it a very unpleasant experience to play agains Emplacement Brits. I always feel I got like 5 minutes of game until a part of the map is a no go zone. If I don't oriented my complete build order and play style towards anti Emplacemt play the game is over. In team games it feels even worse. They don't rely on emplacements. One of the playstyles do. That is why you can go either for AEC or bofors. Plus, we still have shreckblobs and 222 is severely underpriced for current survivability to the point where AEC is useless because of much cheaper pair of 222s, pyrotechnics upgrade is unreliable, brits don't have nearly as much field presence as other factions unless you spam REs and there is no effective stock indirect fire outside of mortar pit, so brits are kind of forced into the pit to keep map control and counter aggressive HMG placement. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Tiger without claws?13 May 2016, 12:45 PM Jump back to quoted post12 May 2016, 13:47 PMJohnnyB snippidy snip I'll go back and address your "gren fragility" argument by enlightening you that we have 5 armies in the game, not 2, Tiger is fighting 5 and 4 men squads just like IS-2 is fighting 5 and 6 men squads. You might want to get updates on your pirated, 3 year old coh2 copy and know that we don't have soviets vs ost MU exclusively and your infantry fragility based on model count argument goes out of the window. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: The mortar pit solutions suggested by the fans13 May 2016, 11:56 AM Jump back to quoted post13 May 2016, 11:43 AMDonnieChan said the guy with 0 OKW games Because people complaining the most here have hundreds of games as brits... Oh wait, most of them haven't even played a single 4v4 as brits, let alone any competitive mode as their PCs state. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Nerf Panzerfusiliers13 May 2016, 11:19 AM Jump back to quoted post13 May 2016, 10:46 AMinsaneHoshi Where are you getting that from? According to http://www.stat.coh2.hu/ Bars have 5 long and 15 close, and PF G43s have 2 far and 10 close http://www.stat.coh2.hu/weapon.php?filename=panzerfusilier_g43 http://www.stat.coh2.hu/weapon.php?filename=riflemen_bar_30_06_light_machine_gun_mp And now, consider the number of weapons on the squad. 2 BARs vs 3 G43s. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Tiger without claws?13 May 2016, 09:55 AM Jump back to quoted post13 May 2016, 09:48 AMNEVEC Heavy tank shouldn't win game for you. Pershing and tiger is example of balanced heavy tank while kt is iwin button. Have no idea how is-2 post buff will perform but penetration buff and 375 frontal armor will be over the top. If you want tanks to be historical accurate than give churchill and m36 jackson historical frontal armor (around 300). IS-2 didn't got any kind of penetration buff. It will simply not shoot into the next sector when fighting infantry now. Tiger got penetration and range buff recently. In: COH2 Balance